U . S .

D E PA RT M E N T O F E D U C AT I O N

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program:
2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

U . S . D E PA RT M E N T O F E D U C AT I O N

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program:
2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Prepared for:
The U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education Federal TRIO Programs

By:
Yu Zhang Tsze Chan American Institutes for Research

2007

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0026/0010 by the American Institutes for Research. Shirley Johnson served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary Office of Postsecondary Education James Manning Acting Assistant Secretary Federal TRIO Programs Larry Oxendine Director March 2007 This report is in the public domain, except for the image on the cover. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Federal TRIO Programs, An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002, Washington, D.C., 2007. Cover photo © 2007 JupiterImages Corporation. To obtain copies of this report: write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398; or fax your request to: 301-470-1244; or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov; or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734; or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org. This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.html. On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

Contents

Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables........................................................................................................................................................ v Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. vii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... ix Highlights ................................................................................................................................................ xi Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................1 Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics ...............................................................3 Section II: Program Outcome and Impact ...............................................................................................13 Appendix A: Number of Grantee Institutions and Student Records, Select Years .....................................25 Appendix B: State Tables on Funding and Select Participant Characteristics ..........................................27 Appendix C: Supporting Tables for Figures .............................................................................................31 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................35 References ..............................................................................................................................................37

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

iii

Figures

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by type of institution: 2003–04 ..................................................................................................................6 Percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by minority-serving and nonminority-serving status: 2003–04 ....................................................................6 Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by participant status and type of institution: 2003–04 ...................................................................................................................................8 Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by eligibility status and type of institution: 2003–04 ...................................................................................................................................9 Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by current year enrollment status and type of institution: 2003–04 ..............................................................................................................10 Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by race/ethnicity and type of institution: 2003–04 .................................................................................................................................10 Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by gender and type of institution: 2003–04 ...................................................................................................................................................11

iv

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Tables

1.

Student Support Services program total funding, number of grantees, number of participants funded to serve, average award, average amount per participant funded to serve, and average number of participants funded to serve by reporting years: 2002–03 and 2003–04 ...................................4 Number and percentage of Student Support Services grantees, number and percentage of SSS grantees submitting annual performance reports, and number, percentage distribution, and average number of participants served, by type of institution and reporting years: 2002–03 and 2003–04 ............5 Number and percentage of the 1999–2000 through 2002–03 full-time Student Support Services freshman participants enrolled one, two, and three years after the freshman year in the original, nongrantee, and any institution, by type of institution .............................................................................15 Number and percentage of Student Support Services 1999–2003 full-time freshman cohort participants at two-year institutions enrolled in any institution one and two years after the freshman year, by eligibility status............................................................................................................16 Number and percentage of Student Support Services 1999–2003 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions enrolled in any institution one, two, and three years after the freshman year, by eligibility status......................................................................................................17 Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 2001–02 and 2002–03 full-time freshman cohort participants who transferred from two-year to four-year institutions one and two years after the freshman year, by degree status ........................................................................................18 Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 2000–03 full-time freshman cohort participants at two-year institutions who completed an associate degree one, two, and three years after the freshman year, by eligibility status......................................................................................................20 Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 1998–2001 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions who completed a bachelor’s degree three, four, and five years after the freshman year, by eligibility status......................................................................................................21 Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 2000–03 full-time freshman cohort participants at two-year institutions who were continuously enrolled for at least the first two years and completed an associate degree one, two, and three years after the freshman year, by length of program services received ......................................................................................................................................23

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

v

Tables

10.

Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 1998–2001 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions who were continuously enrolled for at least the first four years and completed a bachelor’s degree three, four, and five years after the freshman year, by length of program services received ......................................................................................................................................24

A–1. Number of Student Support Services grantees and number of student records reported in the 2002–03 and 2003–04 APRs ...................................................................................................................25 B–1. Number of Student Support Services grantees, funding amount, funding rank, number of participants funded to serve, number served, rank of number served, and amount per participant, by state: 2003–04.....................................................................................................................................27 B–2. Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, based on race/ethnicity, gender, and eligibility status by state: 2003–04 ....................................................................................................29 C–1. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by type of institution: 2003–04 ............................................................................................31 C–2. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by minority-serving and nonminority-serving status: 2003–04..............................................31 C–3. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by participant status and type of institution: 2003–04 ..............................................................................................................32 C–4. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by eligibility status and type of institution: 2003–04 ..............................................................................................................32 C–5. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by current year enrollment status and type of institution: 2003–04..................................................................................33 C–6. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by race/ethnicity and type of institution: 2003–04 ..............................................................................................................33 C–7. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by gender and type of institution: 2003–04 ............................................................................................................................34

vi

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Foreword

To ensure the success of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities must be made available to all students. In keeping with this goal, the Student Support Services (SSS) program of the Federal TRIO Programs provides outreach to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds who need academic support to complete their education. On behalf of the Federal TRIO Programs, we are pleased to present this report, An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002. The SSS program is designed to increase college persistence and graduation rates for eligible students, increase the transfer rates of eligible students from two-year to four-year institutions, and foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of low-income and first-generation college students and individuals with disabilities. This is the fourth in a series of reports that present a national snapshot of the SSS program, presenting grantee data from 2002–03 and 2003–04 with select data for participant cohorts that started in earlier years. The annual performance report (APR), submitted annually by SSS grantees, was the primary data source for this report. We are proud to continue our process for sharing national statistical information on the SSS program with staff, grantees, members of Congress and the larger education community. It is our hope that the collection and dissemination of this information will foster a dialogue among these groups that is aimed at assessing our mission and implementing measures to see how well we are doing. We look forward to continuing to work together to improve program services and increase the number of students who earn college degrees. Larry Oxendine Director Federal TRIO Programs U.S. Department of Education

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

vii

viii

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Acknowledgments

Publishing this report is the end result of a team effort. Special thanks are given to Frances Bergeron, Linda Byrd-Johnson, Julie Laurel, and all other team members of the Federal TRIO Programs for reviewing the various drafts, ensuring the accuracy of the figures reported, and enriching the report with the context and history of the program. We would also like to thank the Student Support Services grantees for submitting data for the 1998–99 through 2003–04 reporting years.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

ix

x

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Highlights

This report describes essential characteristics and key program outcome measures for the Student Support Services (SSS) program grantees and participants in reporting years 2002–03 and 2003–04.

Program Grantees and Program Participants
• The SSS program awarded $262.7 million to 937 grantees in the 2002–03 reporting year and $263.7 million to 936 grantees in the 2003–04 reporting year (table 1). These grantees served a total of 207,423 and 208,382 participants in reporting years 2002–03 and 2003–04, averaging 222 and 223 students served per grant, respectively (table 2). • In both the 2002–03 and 2003–04 reporting years, about 48 percent of the grantees were public two-year institutions and 36 percent were public four-year institutions (table 2), with the remainder served by the private grantee institutions. • In the 2003–04 reporting year, about 46 percent of the participants were served by public two-year institutions, and almost 40 percent were served by public four-year institutions (table 2), with the remainder served by private grantee institutions. • About 11 percent of the grantees were Hispanic-Serving Institutions, 7 percent were Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and 3 percent were Tribal Colleges and Universities. Comparable percentages among all degree-granting institutions in the nation were 6 percent, 3 percent, and 1 percent, respectively (fig. 2). • In the 2003–04 reporting year, approximately 41 percent of participants served by two-year institutions received program services for the first time, and the remaining 59 percent had received program services in previous reporting years. Comparable figures for participants served by fouryear institutions were 38 percent and 62 percent, respectively (fig. 3). • In the 2003–04 reporting year, approximately 77 percent of participants at two-year institutions and 74 percent at four-year institutions were in the eligibility categories of low-income and firstgeneration, low-income and disabled, or disabled only. These percentages exceeded the statute and regulations requirements, which state that at least two-thirds of SSS participants must be low-income and first-generation, low-income and disabled, or disabled only (fig. 4).

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

xi

Highlights

Persistence
• Over two-thirds of the full-time freshmen in two-year institutions were enrolled in a postsecondary institution in the next year, and over half of the freshmen were enrolled two years after. Three years after the freshman year, about 40 percent were enrolled in a postsecondary institution (table 3). • At four-year institutions, over 82 percent of participants who enrolled full-time in their freshman year were enrolled in a postsecondary institution in the following year. Two years after the freshman year, over two-thirds of these freshmen were still enrolled in postsecondary institutions. Three years after the freshman year, just over 60 percent continued their enrollment in a postsecondary institution (table 3).

Transfer from Two-year to Four-year Institutions
• Two years after the freshman year, a total of about 14 percent of full-time freshmen who had entered two-year institutions in the 2001–02 reporting year had transferred to four-year institutions (table 6).

Degree Completion
• Approximately 9 percent of the 2000–01 full-time freshmen at two-year institutions earned their associate degree from the grantee institution by the end of the second year. Two years after the freshman year, the cumulative percentage of these freshmen having earned their associate degree increased to 18 percent and to 23 percent in three years after the freshman year (table 7). • About 11 percent of the 1998–99 freshmen at four-year institutions received their bachelor’s degree from the grantee institution three years after the freshman year. Four years after the freshman year, the percentage of these freshmen who received their bachelor’s degree increased to 22 percent and to 28 percent five years after the freshman year (table 8). • At four-year institutions, the first-generation only participants were more likely than participants of other eligibility statuses to earn a bachelor’s degree four or five years after the freshman year (table 8).

Length of Services Received and Degree Completion
• In all the freshman cohorts examined, and across both two-year and four-year institutions, participants who received more years of services had a higher degree completion rate than participants who received services for fewer years (table 9 and table 10). This finding should be viewed as the first step toward a more thorough understanding of the relationship between length of services and degree completion. The impact of institutional and individual characteristics, and how they interact with program participation, for example, also must be considered.

xii

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Introduction

The Student Support Services (SSS) program is one of the three original TRIO programs authorized in 1968 by Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. §1101a), as amended. The goal of SSS is to increase the postsecondary persistence and graduation rates of low-income students, first-generation college students, or students with disabilities and to facilitate these students’ transition from one level of higher education to the next.1 SSS program services are provided by postsecondary degree-granting institutions that receive SSS grants. Activities and services offered by SSS grantees include, but are not limited to, instruction in basic skills, tutoring, academic advising, financial aid and career counseling, transfer and graduate school counseling, and mentoring. Some SSS grantee institutions also may provide special services to eligible students with limited English proficiency. Beginning in 2001–02, SSS grantees may use up to 20 percent of grantee funds for grant aid to participants. Each grantee is required to provide grantee information to the Federal TRIO Programs through the annual performance report (APR), with content stipulated by the program. The current report is based on the APRs submitted by the SSS grantees for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 reporting years, with select data from the reporting period 1998–99 through 2001–02. Reporting years 2002–03 and 2003–04 were the second and third years of a four-year funding cycle that started in 2001–02. The select data from previous years are used for presenting participant cohorts that started before the 2002–03 reporting year. This is the latest in a series of four reports describing the SSS program. It differs from the previous reports in several ways: • This report presents for the first time the 2002–03 and 2003–04 APR data. • The purpose of this report is to update key grantee and participant information. • Because of their disadvantaged background, SSS participants often need a longer time to complete a degree than their counterparts with dissimilar backgrounds. This report displays the completion rates for the 1998–99 freshman cohort participants who completed a bachelor’s degree within six years of beginning college, that is, within five years after their freshman year. • This report also presents the degree completion rate by the length of time participants received services.

The Federal TRIO Programs have grown from three to eight programs since they were first authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and now include Upward Bound (1964), Talent Search (1965), Student Support Services (1968), Educational Opportunity Centers (1972), Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs (1976), Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (1986), Upward Bound Math-Science (1990), and TRIO Dissemination Partnership (1998).

1

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

1

Introduction

The rest of this report consists of two sections. Section I describes select grantee and participant characteristics for reporting years 2002–03 and 2003–04. Section II presents information on program outcomes and impact as measured by persistence and degree completion rates for full-time freshmen and type of institution. Section II also presents data on length of services received and degree completion. After Section II, three appendices provide some supplemental or supportive information. Appendix A presents the number of student records contained in the 2002–03 and 2003–04 APR data. Appendix B reports select characteristics of grantees and participants by state. Appendix C provides counts corresponding to the percentages displayed in the figures. The APRs provide information on the education progress of participants only for the period the students are enrolled at the grantee institution. Academic progress of transferred students is not reported in the APR. Thus, using only APR data underreports the achievement of the SSS program. Because the majority of SSS participants are from low-income families and, therefore, eligible to apply for financial aid, the 1998–2004 federal student financial aid records were used to supplement missing enrollment information. This use of financial aid data has facilitated better tracking of participants over time. For example, among participants at two-year colleges, the percentage of 2002–03 freshmen enrolled at the original institution in 2003–04 was just over 70 percent; using the student financial aid records to supplement APR data led to the determination that the percentage of 2002–03 participants enrolled in any postsecondary institution in 2003–04 was close to 81 percent (see table 3). However, the student financial aid data could not provide reliable information on degree completion. For this reason, the bachelor’s degree completion rate of participants who transferred from two-year to four-year institutions remains underestimated. In addition to the supplemental information from student financial aid files, beginning in 2001–02, SSS grantees were asked to verify or update enrollment and degree completion information on participants who, according to their enrollment status at the end of the previous reporting year, should have been enrolled in the current reporting year but whose records were missing. The SSS program currently is exploring additional options to improve the degree completion rates to more accurately reflect the achievement of the grantees.

2

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section I

Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics
This section presents select characteristics of SSS grantees and participants for reporting years 2002–03 and 2003–04, with some national data provided for comparison.

Characteristics of Grantees for Select Reporting Years
The 2002–03 and 2003–04 reporting years were the second and third years of a four-year funding cycle that began in 2001–02. • In reporting year 2002–03, the SSS program awarded $262.7 million to 937 grantees to serve a targeted total of 198,551 participants.2 In reporting year 2003–04, the SSS program awarded $263.7 million to 936 grantees to serve a targeted total of 195,288 college students (table 1). • Compared with reporting year 2002–03, the average grantee award and the average amount per participant in reporting year 2003–04 increased slightly from $280,375 to $281,678 and from $1,323 to $1,350, respectively. The average number of participants funded to serve decreased slightly from 212 students in reporting year 2002–03 to 209 students in reporting year 2003–04 (table 1). • Only three grantees in reporting year 2002–03 and only two grantees in reporting year 2003–04 did not submit APRs. Therefore, the response rates for these reporting years were nearly 100 percent (table 2). • The average number of students served per grantee was 222 in reporting year 2002–03 and 223 in reporting year 2003–04.3 Public four-year grantee institutions served, on average, more participants per grantee than other types of institutions (table 2). • In the 2003–04 reporting year, public two-year institutions served about 46 percent of the program participants, and public four-year institutions served about 40 percent of the participants. Private four-year institutions served about 14 percent of program participants, with private two-year institutions comprising only 1 percent (table 2). • In both the 2002–03 and 2003–04 reporting years, 48 percent of the grantees were public two-year institutions and 36 percent were public four-year institutions (table 2). In comparison, 26 percent of all degree-granting institutions in the nation were public two-year institutions and 15 percent were public four-year institutions (fig. 1).
The targeted total of participants refers to the grantee’s planned level of service in terms of numbers of students, as agreed to by the Federal TRIO office before the beginning of the funding year, corresponding to the number of participants funded to serve in table 1.
3 2

Students served includes new and continuing participants reported by each grantee.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

3

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

• Although only 9 percent of all U.S. degree-granting institutions were minority-serving institutions (MSIs),4 about 21 percent of the SSS grantees were MSIs in the 2003–04 reporting year (fig. 2):

Among SSS grantees, 7 percent were Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), compared with 3 percent of all degree-granting institutions (fig. 2); Among SSS grantees, 11 percent were Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), compared with 6 percent of all degree-granting institutions (fig. 2); and Although only about 3 percent of the SSS grantee institutions were Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), that number was three times larger than the percentage of TCUs represented in all degree-granting institutions (fig. 2).

Table 1.

Student Support Services program total funding, number of grantees, number of participants funded to serve, average award, average amount per participant funded to serve, and average number of participants funded to serve by reporting years: 2002–03 and 2003–04
Number of participants funded to servea 198,551 195,288 Average award ($) 280,375 281,678 Average amount per participant funded to serve ($) 1,323 1,350 Average number of participants funded to serve 212 209

Reporting year 2002–03 2003–04

Total funding ($) 262,711,302 263,650,147

Number of grantees 937 936

SOURCE: Data from program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs. a Participants funded to serve refers to the grantee’s planned level of service in terms of numbers of students, as agreed to by the Federal TRIO Programs before the beginning of the funding year.

4 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Digest of Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2004.

4

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Table 2.

Number and percentage of Student Support Services grantees, number and percentage of SSS grantees submitting annual performance reports, and number, percentage distribution, and average number of participants served, by type of institution and reporting years: 2002–03 and 2003–04
Number of Percent of grantees that grantees that submitted submitted APRs APRs 2002–03 333 140 449 12 934 2003–04 333 141 448 12 934 99.7 99.3 100.0 92.3 99.7 99.7 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.8 Number of participants served 84,128 27,939 93,105 2,251 207,423 83,020 28,454 94,771 2,137 208,382 Percent of participants served 40.6 13.5 44.9 1.1 100.0 39.8 13.7 45.5 1.0 100.0 Average number of participants served 253 200 207 188 222 249 202 212 178 223

Type of institution Public four-year Private four-year Public two-year Private two-year All grantees Public four-year Private four-year Public two-year Private two-year All grantees

Number of grantees 334 141 449 13 937 334 141 449 12 936

Percent of grantees 35.7 15.1 47.9 1.4 100.0 35.7 15.1 48.0 1.3 100.0

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports (APRs), 2002–03 and 2003–04. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

5

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Figure 1.

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by type of institution: 2003–04
100 80 60 44.8 40 20 0 35.7 25.6 15.0 15.1 1.3 Public 4-year Private 4-year Type of Institution SSS projects All degree-granting institutions Public 2-year Private 2-year 14.6 48.0

SOURCE: Data from program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs and the National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2004, Table 244—Degree-granting institutions, by control and type of institution: 1949–50 to 2003–04. This table can be found at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/ tables/dt04_244.asp. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Figure 2.

Percent

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by minority-serving and nonminority-serving status: 2003–04
100 80 60 40 20 6.9 0 2.5 79.5 91.0

Percent

11.0

5.7

2.6

0.8 Nonminority-serving

Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Tribal Colleges and Universities

Institution Status SSS projects All degree-granting institutions

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04, and from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Digest of Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2004. Information on Historically Black Colleges and Universities can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/ edlite-list.html (data retrieved on April 26, 2006); Hispanic-Serving Institutions at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/ definition.html (data retrieved on April 26, 2006); and Tribal Colleges and Universities at: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/ whtc/edlite-tclist.html (data retrieved on April 26, 2006).

6

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Characteristics of Participants Served in the 2003–04 Reporting Year
Students participating in the SSS grantees were identified in the APRs as “new,” “continuing,” or “prior-year.” A new participant is an individual who is participating in the SSS program for the first time in the current reporting period. A continuing participant is an individual who participated in the SSS program in a previous reporting period and is participating in the current reporting period. A “prior-year” participant is an individual who had participated in the SSS program in a previous reporting period but is not receiving any program services in the current reporting period. This section presents data on the demographic characteristics of the participants who received services in the reporting year—participants who were reported either as new or as continuing in the APRs. Information regarding the participation status, eligibility status, current year enrollment status, race/ethnicity and gender of participants served in both the 2002–03 and the 2003–04 reporting years were reviewed. Because the data differ only slightly between the two reporting years, only data from the 2003–04 reporting year are summarized in the following discussion. • Participant status of new versus continuing—In the 2003–04 reporting year, 41 percent of the participants at two-year institutions and 38 percent of the participants at four-year institutions were new participants, receiving program services for the first time in 2003–04 (fig. 3). • Participant eligibility5—Approximately 65 percent of the participants served by two-year institutions and 62 percent served by four-year institutions were first-generation college students from lowincome families. Overall, approximately 77 percent of participants at two-year institutions and 74 percent at four-year institutions were low-income and first-generation, low-income and disabled, or disabled only (fig. 4). These percentages exceeded the statutory and regulatory requirements, which state that at least two-thirds of SSS participants must be low-income and first-generation, low-income and disabled, or disabled only. • Current year enrollment status—In 2003–04, about 53 percent of the participants served at twoyear institutions were full-time students. By comparison, about 78 percent of the participants at four-year institutions were full-time students. About one-quarter of the participants at two-year institutions and 13 percent of the participants at four-year institutions had enrollment status that varied between semesters or quarters (fig. 5).6 • Race/ethnicity—In 2003–04, the percentage distribution of participants by race/ethnicity varied across type of institution (fig. 6):

Forty-seven percent (47 percent) of the participants served at two-year institutions were white compared with 37 percent at the four-year institutions.

5

To receive assistance, students must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of postsecondary education at a grantee institution. Low-income students who are first-generation college students or students with disabilities evidencing academic need are eligible to participate in the SSS program. Two-thirds of the participants in any SSS project must be lowincome and first-generation, low-income and disabled, or disabled only. One-third of the disabled participants must be lowincome students.

6 An example of varied enrollment is a student enrolling half-time in the fall semester and three-quarter time in the spring semester.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

7

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Conversely, four-year institutions served more minority students, particularly Hispanic and African-American students, than did two-year institutions. About 20 percent of the students served at four-year institutions were Hispanic compared with 14 percent served at two-year institutions. About 32 percent of the students served at four-year institutions were AfricanAmerican, whereas 29 percent of the students served at two-year institutions were AfricanAmerican.

• Gender—Overall, SSS grantees continue to serve more female than male students. At two-year institutions, about 72 percent of the participants were females, about two and a half times the percentage of males (28 percent). The male to female percentage difference was less at four-year institutions (64 percent vs. 36 percent; fig. 7).

Figure 3.

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by participant status and type of institution: 2003–04
100 80 60 41.1 40 20 0 37.6 58.9 62.4

Percent

New Participant Statusa Two-year institutions Four-year institutions

Continuing

SOURCE: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. a A new participant is an individual who participated in the SSS program for the first time in the reporting period. A continuing participant is an individual who received services in both the current reporting period and in a previous reporting period.

8

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Figure 4.

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by eligibility status and type of institution: 2003–04
100 80 64.8 62.2 60 40 20 6.7 0 Low-income and first-generation 5.4 5.5 6.8 6.0 8.0 First-generation only 17.0 17.6

Percent

Low-income and disabled

Disabled only Participant Eligibility Statusa

Low-income only

Two-year institutions

Four-year institutions

SOURCE: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. a To be eligible to participate in the SSS program, a student must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of postsecondary education that receives a SSS program grant and must be qualified in one of the following five eligibility categories: low-income and first-generation, low-income and disabled, disabled only, low-income only, or first-generation only. These terms are defined below: • Low-income student—a student whose family’s taxable income does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level in the calendar year preceding the year in which the individual initially received services. The poverty level amount is determined using criteria established by the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce. • First-generation college student—a student from a family in which neither parent (whether natural or adoptive) received a baccalaureate degree or a student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one natural or adoptive parent and whose supporting parent did not receive a baccalaureate degree. • Student with disabilities—a student who has a diagnosed physical or mental impairment that substantially limits his or her ability to participate in the educational experiences and opportunities offered by the grantee institution.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

9

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Figure 5.
100 80 60 40

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by current year enrollment status and type of institution: 2003–04

77.8

Percent

52.7

24.8 20 7.4 0 Full-time 2.9 8.0 3.2 4.9 1.5 Varied 12.5 2.2 2.0

Three-quarter time

Half-time

Less than half-time

Unknown

Enrollment Statusa Two-year institutions Four-year institutions

SOURCE: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. a Varied enrollment status refers to instances in which the enrollment status of a student varies from one semester or quarter to another semester or quarter. For example, the enrollment status of a student who enrolls half-time in the fall semester and three-quarter time in the spring semester would be classified as varied enrollment. Unknown enrollment status refers to a missing or out-of-range response.

Figure 6.
100 80 60

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by race/ethnicity and type of institution: 2003–04

Percent

46.5 40 20 4.5 0 3.3 3.0 5.8 Black or African American Hispanic or Latino White 28.8 31.9 14.2 19.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 1.5 37.3

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

More than one race reporteda

Race/Ethnicity Two-year institutions Four-year institutions

SOURCE: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. a More than one race reported is a single category listed in the race/ethnicity field of the annual performance report.

10

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section I: Select Grantee and Active Participant Characteristics

Figure 7.
100 80 60 40

Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by gender and type of institution: 2003–04

72.3 64.3

Percent

35.7 27.7

20 0

Male Gender Two-year institutions Four-year institutions

Female

SOURCE: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

11

12

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section II

Program Outcome and Impact
As mentioned earlier, the goals and objectives of the SSS program are to increase the postsecondary persistence and graduation rates of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and to facilitate these students’ transition from one level of higher education to the next. The following academic accomplishments have been identified as program outcome measures for assessing the performance of the SSS grantees: • Percentage of a full-time freshman participant cohort enrolled one, two, and three years after the freshman year; • Cumulative percentage of a full-time freshman participant cohort at two-year institutions who transferred to four-year institutions one and two years after the freshman year; • Cumulative percentage of a full-time freshman participant cohort at two-year institutions who earned an associate degree one, two, and three years after the freshman year; • Cumulative percentage of a full-time freshman participant cohort at four-year institution who earned a bachelor’s degree three, four, and five years after the freshman year. A full-time freshman participant cohort refers to students who (1) received SSS services for the first time in the reporting year (“new” participants), (2) were in their first year of postsecondary education, (3) had never attained a bachelor’s degree, and (4) were enrolled full-time in their freshman year. The last condition was imposed in order to restrict the data to a reasonable number of years to observe degree completion.

Persistence
Table 3 shows the enrollment status one, two, and three years after the freshman year for four fulltime freshman cohorts—1999–2000 through 2002–03—in both two-year and four-year institutions. Tables 4 and 5 show the persistence status of these same cohorts by eligibility status. Table 4 focuses on full-time freshman participants at two-year institutions, and table 5 focuses on full-time freshman participants at four-year institutions.7

Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the percentage of freshmen who reported being enrolled in the reporting year, not the percentage of freshmen who continuously enrolled.

7

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

13

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

• At two-year institutions, over two-thirds of each of the four full-time freshman cohorts enrolled in a postsecondary institution in one year after the freshman year. Two years after the freshman year, the enrollment rate of these freshmen was over 50 percent. Three years after freshman year, the enrollment rate was about 40 percent (table 3). • About 11 percent of the 2002–03 full-time freshmen enrolled in institutions in a nongrantee institution in the second year. Three years after the freshman year, this number had doubled, with slightly over 22 percent enrolled in a nongrantee institution (table 3).8 • At two-year institutions, the enrollment rate for the category “in any institution” one, two, and three years after the freshman year increased with each successive cohort (table 3). • Table 3 indicates that at four-year institutions, for the category “in any institution,” over 82 percent of each of the four full-time freshman cohort participants enrolled in the year following their freshman year (i.e., second year), and over two-thirds of them enrolled two years after and less than two-thirds enrolled three years after the freshman year. Unlike participants at two-year institutions, who can complete an associate degree in the second year, participants at four-year institutions do not usually attain a bachelor’s degree within two years after the freshman year. Thus, the decrease in the enrollment rate two years after the freshman year at four-year institutions can mostly be attributed to participants who dropped out or transferred. • With two exceptions, the enrollment rate at four-year institutions for the category “in any institution” improved with each successive cohort (table 3). The first exception is the enrollment rate of the 2002–03 cohort (86 percent) one year after the freshman year, which was lower than that of the two preceding cohorts. The second exception is the enrollment rate of the 2001–02 freshman cohort two years after the freshman year, which was slightly lower than that of the 2000–01 freshman cohort (73.0 percent and 73.2 percent, respectively). • Table 4 shows that at two-year institutions, changes in the percentage of full-time freshmen enrolled in a postsecondary institution over time as observed in table 3 occurred in all eligibility status groups. • Table 5 shows that changes in the percentage of full-time freshmen enrolled over time as observed in table 3 occurred in every eligibility group at four-year institutions. • Table 5 also shows that at four-year institutions, the enrollment rate of participants whose eligibility status was either low-income and first-generation or low-income and disabled was consistently higher than that of participants with other eligibility statuses.

8

A nongrantee institution refers to a postsecondary institution that was not funded by the SSS program in the reporting year

14

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 3.

Number and percentage of the 1999–2000 through 2002–03 full-time Student Support Services freshman participants enrolled one, two, and three years after the freshman year in the original, nongrantee, and any institution, by type of institution
Two-year institutions Percent Percent Percent enrolled in enrolled in enrolled in Number of original nongrantee any full-time institutiona institution institutionb freshmen One year after the freshman year 57.6 15.6 73.2 17,301 64.6 13.4 78.0 17,827 67.6 13.2 80.8 18,876 70.2 10.7 80.9 18,552 Two years after the freshman year 34.2 18.7 52.9 17,301 35.1 21.9 57.0 17,827 41.4 18.5 59.9 18,876 Three years after the freshman year 17.8 21.0 38.7 17,301 18.2 22.3 40.5 17,827 Four-year institutions Percent Percent enrolled in enrolled in original nongrantee institution institution 68.9 74.6 75.1 75.7 52.8 57.8 57.6 43.8 48.7 14.0 11.4 11.6 10.0 16.1 15.4 15.3 16.5 15.2 Percent enrolled in any institution 82.9 85.9 86.6 85.7 68.9 73.2 73.0 60.3 63.9

Full-time freshman cohort year 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 1999–2000 2000–01

Number of full-time freshmen 14,422 13,521 17,797 14,859 14,422 13,521 17,797 14,422 13,521

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04, and from program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1999–2004. Note: This table reports the percentage of freshmen who were enrolled in the reporting year, not the percentage of freshmen who were continuously enrolled from year to year. a An original institution is a grantee institution. b Percent enrolled in any institution is the sum of the percentage enrolled in the original institution and the percentage enrolled in a nongrantee institution.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

15

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 4.

Number and percentage of Student Support Services 1999–2003 full-time freshman cohort participants at two-year institutions enrolled in any institution one and two years after the freshman year, by eligibility status
Cohort year 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One year after the freshman year 8,983 74.0 8,529 78.2 11,724 81.2 998 71.7 854 79.5 1,174 80.5 695 75.7 683 81.4 958 82.4 2,720 70.9 2,612 76.3 2,947 79.5 1,014 71.7 827 77.9 963 79.6 14,410 73.2 13,505 78.0 17,766 80.8 Two years after the freshman year 8,983 54.1 8,529 57.9 11,724 59.9 998 52.6 854 58.9 1,174 63.9 695 56.1 683 61.1 958 58.2 2,720 48.9 2,612 53.2 2,947 59.2 1,014 51.4 827 54.3 963 60.2 14,410 52.9 13,505 57.0 17,766 60.0 2002–03 Number Percent 9,705 973 839 2,516 810 14,843 —a — — — — — 80.9 80.9 80.5 81.4 79.6 80.9 — — — — — —

Eligibility status Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04, and from program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1999–2004. Note: This table shows the percentage of freshmen who were enrolled in the reporting year, not the percentage of freshmen who were continuously enrolled from year to year. Any institution refers to both grantee and nongrantee institutions. a A dash (—) indicates data not available.

16

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 5.

Number and percentage of Student Support Services 1999–2003 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions enrolled in any institution one, two, and three years after the freshman year, by eligibility status
Cohort year 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One year after the freshman year 10,687 85.0 10,816 87.5 11,665 88.0 1,544 84.6 1,662 88.9 1,720 87.6 522 81.8 504 84.1 577 84.2 3,478 77.9 3,698 81.4 3,865 83.7 1,041 77.1 1,102 82.0 1,004 82.6 17,272 83.0 17,782 86.0 18,831 86.6 Two years after the freshman year 10,687 71.2 10,816 75.3 11,665 74.4 1,544 69.8 1,662 77.0 1,720 75.6 522 67.4 504 71.6 577 68.6 3,478 63.5 3,698 68.2 3,865 69.5 1,041 64.1 1,102 66.0 1,004 67.8 17,272 69.0 17,782 73.3 18,831 73.0 Three years after the freshman year 10,687 62.7 10,816 66.1 — — 1,544 63.9 1,662 68.3 — — 522 53.6 504 59.5 — — 3,478 54.0 3,698 58.1 — — 1,041 56.1 1,102 57.9 — — 17,272 60.4 17,782 64.0 — — 2002–03 Number Percent 11,878 1,675 571 3,438 945 18,507 —a — — — — — — — — — — — 87.2 85.9 82.3 82.8 80.1 85.8 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Eligibility status Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04, and from program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1999–2004. Note: This table shows the percentage of freshmen who were enrolled in the reporting year, not the percentage of freshmen who were continuously enrolled from year to year. Any institution refers to both grantee and nongrantee institutions. a A dash (—) indicates data not available.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

17

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Transfer From Two-year to Four-year Institutions
The goal of the SSS program is to increase the college persistence and graduation rates of its participants and help students make the transition from one level of higher education to the next. Beginning in the 2001–02 reporting year, grantees began reporting the type of institutions to which a participant transferred. About 9 percent of the participants who were full-time freshmen in 2001–02 transferred to four-year institutions one year after the freshman year. Approximately 5 percent of these freshmen transferred before they attained an associate degree, and the remainder had already received an associate degree. Two years after the freshman year, over 14 percent of the 2001–02 cohort had transferred to a four-year institution, with about half of those who transferred having received an associate degree (table 6).

Table 6.

Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 2001–02 and 2002–03 full-time freshman cohort participants who transferred from two-year to four-year institutions one and two years after the freshman year, by degree status
Cumulative percent Cumulative percent transferred without transferred with associate degree associate degree One year after the freshman year 5.4 3.2 5.2 3.0 Two years after the freshman year 6.9 7.3 —a — Cumulative percent transferred (total) 8.6 8.2 14.2 —

Cohort year 2001–02 2002–03 2001–02 2002–03

Number 17,797 14,859 17,797 14,859

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04. Note: Beginning with the 2001–02 reporting year, grantees reported the type of institutions to which participants transferred. The percentages are cumulative so that at each year after the freshman year, the percentage represents those who transferred in that and the preceding year. For example, two years after the freshman year, a total of 6.9 percent of the 2001–02 freshmen had transferred to another institution one year or two years after their freshman year. That is, 5.4 percent transferred after one year and an additional 1.5 percent transferred after their second year, for a cumulative percentage of 6.9 percent. a A dash (—) indicates data not available.

18

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Degree Completion
This subsection displays degree completion rates for full-time freshmen who graduated from the same institution. As noted earlier, grantees report the academic progress of a program participant only as long as the individual remains enrolled in that grantee institution, which means that a degree obtained by the same individual in another institution is not reported in the APR. The overall achievement of the SSS program in assisting participants to complete their studies is therefore underestimated.9
Associate Degree

Table 7 shows the associate degrees attained by all participants at two-year institutions for three full-time freshman cohorts (2000–01, 2001–02, and 2002–03) by eligibility status in one, two, and three years after the freshman year. When all participants in the cohort were considered as a group, approximately 9 percent of the 2000–01 full-time freshman cohort participants obtained their associate degree from the grantee institution one year after the freshman year. The cumulative percentage increased to 18 percent two years after the freshman year and to 23 percent three years after the freshman year. Two observations are evident when associate degree attainment is analyzed separately by eligibility status (table 7): • Variation in the percentage of associate degree completion rate among the different eligibility groups narrows with the number of years allowed for graduation. In the 2000–01 full-time freshman cohort, one year after the freshman year, the associate degree completion rate among the different eligibility groups ranged from 6 to 11 percent. Three years after the freshman year, the range was between 22 and 25 percent. • Two and three years after the freshman year, 2000–01 full-time freshman who were low-income only earned an associate degree at a relatively higher rate than freshmen of other eligibility statuses.
Bachelor’s Degree

Table 8 shows bachelor’s degree attainment for three cohorts of full-time freshman participants at four-year institutions by eligibility status three, four, and five years after the freshman year. For the 1998–99 cohort, approximately 11 percent had obtained a bachelor’s degree from the grantee institution three years after the freshman year, 22 percent four years after the freshman year, and 28 percent five years after the freshman year. The percentage of the 1998–99 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions earning a bachelor’s degree three, four, and five years after the freshman year differed only slightly by eligibility status. Three years after the freshman year, the bachelor’s degree completion rate across the eligibility groups ranged from 10 to 13 percent. Five years after the freshman year, the range was from 27 to 32 percent. A relatively larger percentage of the 1998–99 full-time freshmen who were first-generation college students earned a bachelor’s degree than freshmen of other eligibility statuses four and five years after the freshman year (table 8).

9

The SSS program is currently exploring alternative data sets to supplement the degree completion rates information.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

19

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 7.

Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 2000–03 full-time freshman cohort participants at two-year institutions who completed an associate degree one, two, and three years after the freshman year, by eligibility status
Cohort year 2000–01 2001–02 Cumulative Cumulative Number percenta Number percenta One year after the freshman year 8,529 8.8 11,724 7.5 854 10.9 1,174 8.6 683 6.7 958 6.3 2,612 10.6 2,947 10.7 827 6.0 963 5.2 13,505 9.0 17,766 7.9 Two years after the freshman year 8,529 17.7 11,724 17.8 854 17.7 1,174 19.5 683 17.3 958 16.7 2,612 20.5 2,947 22.6 827 16.6 963 18.6 13,505 18.1 17,766 18.7 Three years after the freshman year 8,529 22.0 — — 854 22.2 — — 683 23.4 — — 2,612 25.3 — — 827 22.7 — — 13,505 22.8 — — 2002–03 Cumulative Number percenta 9,705 973 839 2,516 810 14,843 —b — — — — — — — — — — — 7.3 9.7 4.2 9.7 6.0 7.6 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Eligibility status Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04. a The percentages are based on degree completed at the grantee institution in which participants first enrolled. The percentages are cumulative so that at each year after the freshman year, the percentage represents those who completed an associate degree in that and all preceding years. For example, three years after the freshman year, a total of 22.7 percent of the 2000–01 first-generation only freshmen had received an associate degree one year, two years, or three years after the freshman year. b A dash (—) indicates data not available.

20

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 8.

Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 1998–2001 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions who completed a bachelor’s degree three, four, and five years after the freshman year, by eligibility status
Cohort year 1998–99 1999–2000 Cumulative Cumulative Number percenta Number percenta Three years after the freshman year 10,294 10.1 10,687 9.8 1,724 13.1 1,544 11.3 504 10.7 522 8.6 3,895 11.5 3,478 12.1 998 11.3 1,041 11.1 17,415 10.8 17,272 10.5 Four years after the freshman year 10,294 21.4 10,687 22.0 1,724 23.1 1,544 23.8 504 21.6 522 19.0 3,895 23.3 3,478 24.6 998 25.4 1,041 29.5 17,415 22.2 17,272 23.0 Five years after the freshman year 10,294 27.4 — — 1,724 28.7 — — 504 27.2 — — 3,895 28.4 — — 998 32.0 — — 17,415 28.0 — — 2000–01 Cumulative Number percenta 10,816 1,662 504 3,698 1,102 17,782 —b — — — — — — — — — — — 11.6 11.4 11.7 12.6 13.4 11.9 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Eligibility status Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Disabled only Low-income only First-generation only Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04. a The percentages are based on degree completed at the grantee institution in which participants first enrolled. The percentages are cumulative so that at each year after the freshman year, the percentage represents those who completed a bachelor’s degree in that and all preceding years. For example, five years after the freshman year, a total of 32 percent of the 1998–99 first-generation only freshmen had received a bachelor’s degree three years, four years, or five years after the freshman year. b A dash (—) indicates data not available.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

21

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Length of Services Received and Degree Completion
This section provides a first look at degree completion and the lengths of services received. Students in each of the three full-time freshman cohorts at two-year institutions (2000–01, 2001–02, and 2002–03) who were continuously enrolled for two consecutive years were grouped on the basis of length of program services received—cohort members who received program services in their first year only and cohort members who received services in both their first and one year after the freshman year.10 Students in each of the three full-time freshman cohorts at the four-year institutions (1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01) who were continuously enrolled for four years were grouped into the following categories according to the total number of years they had received services three years after the freshman year: (a) received services in their first year (freshman year) only, (b) received services in the first year and one additional year through the end of the rest three years, (c) received services in the first year and any two of the remaining years, or (d) received services in all four years (freshman through senior). Among all three cohorts enrolled in two-year institutions, even among full-time freshmen who were continuously enrolled in their first two years in college, those who received two years of services had a higher associate degree completion rate one, two and three years after the freshman year than those participants who received services for only one year. Further, the gap increased with the time allowed for graduation. For example, for the 2000–01 cohort, 9 percent of those who received services in their first year only received an associate degree one year after the freshman year compared with 12 percent of those who received services in their first two years. Three years after the freshman year, the comparable percentages were 15 percent and 34 percent (table 9). The impact of length of services on degree completion was similar for four-year institutions. Three years after the freshman year, 23 to 24 percent of the full-time freshmen who had been continuously enrolled for four years and received four years of services attained a bachelor’s degree. In comparison, 11 to 15 percent of similar participants who received only one year of services attained a bachelor’s degree. The gap increased with the length of time allowed for graduation—for the 1998–99 cohort, the gap increased to a difference of about 20 percentage points four years after the freshman year and 30 percentage points five years after the freshman year (table 10). Although participants who receive more services have higher completion rates, other institutional and individual characteristics could be influencing both the length of services received and the likelihood of completing a degree within a certain period of time. A more thorough understanding of the relationship between length of services received and degree completion requires controlling the impact of these other factors, which is beyond the scope of this report.

To be included in the analysis, a participant must be a full-time freshman who graduated from or enrolled in a two-year institution one year after the freshman year and enrolled within the next three years after the freshman year in a four-year institution. This second restriction was imposed to provide more comparable samples because SSS grantees only serve enrolled students. In a two-year institution, for example, participants who received two years of services also must have enrolled for at least two years (and, hence, had a better chance of completing college), whereas participants who received one year of services include some freshmen who dropped out by the end of the first year, providing a biased picture in favor of participants who received a longer period of program services. Limiting the analysis of length of program services to only those freshmen who continuously enrolled for two years in two-year institutions and for four years in four-year institutions controls for this possible bias.

10

22

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 9.

Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 2000–03 full-time freshman cohort participants at two-year institutions who were continuously enrolled for at least the first two years and completed an associate degree one, two, and three years after the freshman year, by length of program services received
Cohort year 2000–01 2001–02 Number of Cumulative Number of Cumulative Participants percenta Participants percenta One year after the freshman year 2,944 8.8 4,026 9.1 7,699 12.4 10,448 9.9 10,643 11.4 14,474 9.7 Two years after the freshman year 2,944 12.3 4,026 14.3 7,699 27.1 10,448 26.2 10,643 23.0 14,474 28.9 Three years after the freshman year 2,944 14.5 — — 7,699 34.2 — — 10,643 28.7 — — 2002–03 Number of Cumulative Participants percenta 2,877 9,190 12,067 —c — — — — — 6.8 10.2 9.4 — — — — — —

Years of services received One yearb Two years Total One yearb Two years Total One yearb Two years Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. a The percentages are based on degree completed at the grantee institution in which participants first enrolled. The percentages are cumulative so that at each year after the freshman year, the percentage represents those who completed an associate degree in that and all preceding years. For example, three years after the freshman year, a total of 14.5 percent of the 2000–01 freshmen who had received only one year of SSS services in their academic career had completed an associate degree one year, two years, or three years after the freshman year. b One year refers to participants who received services only in their freshman year. Two years refers to participants who received services in the first two consecutive years. c A dash (—) indicates data not available.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

23

Section II: Program Outcome and Impact

Table 10. Number and cumulative percentage of Student Support Services 1998–2001 full-time freshman cohort participants at four-year institutions who were continuously enrolled for at least the first four years and completed a bachelor’s degree three, four, and five years after the freshman year, by length of program services received
Cohort year 1998–99 1999–2000 Number of Cumulative Number of Cumulative Participants percenta Participants percenta Three years after the freshman year 2,329 15.1 2,524 11.3 1,539 17.3 1,758 16.6 1,379 18.4 1,566 16.7 4,354 23.1 4,153 23.3 9,601 19.6 10,001 18.1 Four years after the freshman year 2,329 28.3 2,524 26.7 1,539 34.2 1,758 32.2 1,379 35.5 1,566 33.8 4,354 48.6 4,153 52.2 9,601 39.5 10,001 39.4 Five years after the freshman year 2,329 33.3 — — 1,539 40.5 — — 1,379 44.3 — — 4,354 62.8 — — 9,601 49.4 — — 2000–01 Number of Cumulative Participants percenta 2,779 2,202 1,420 4,408 10,809 —c — — — — — — — — — 13.1 21.3 16.8 23.8 19.6 — — — — — — — — — —

Years of services received One yearb Two years Three years Four years Total One yearb Two years Three years Four years Total One yearb Two years Three years Four years Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04. a The percentages are based on degree completed at the grantee institution in which participants first enrolled. The percentages are cumulative so that at each year after the freshman year, the percentage represents those who completed a bachelor’s degree in that and all preceding years. For example, five years after the freshman year, a total of 33.3 percent of the 1998–99 freshmen who had received only one year of SSS services in their academic career had completed a bachelor’s degree in three years, four years, or five years after the freshman year. b One year refers to participants who received services only in their freshman year. Two years and three years refer to participants who received services in their freshman year and one or two additional years of services during the first four years. Four years refers to participants who received services in each of the four consecutive years. c A dash (—) indicates data not available.

24

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Appendix A

Number of Grantee Institutions and Student Records, Select Years
Table A–1. Number of Student Support Services grantees and number of student records reported in the 2002–03 and 2003–04 APRs
Reporting year Number of grantee institutions Number of student records reported in the APRs 2002–03 937 337,237 2003–04 936 345,311

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2002–03 and 2003–04.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

25

26

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Appendix B

State Tables on Funding and Select Participant Characteristics
Table B–1. Number of Student Support Services grantees, funding amount, funding rank, number of participants funded to serve, number served, rank of number served, and amount per participant, by state: 2003–04
Number of participants funded to serveb 7,696 160 150 2,472 5,229 15,550 2,891 965 640 625 160 4,175 2,525 190 1,336 915 8,326 3,425 4,355 3,645 3,353 3,925 1,930 3,022 4,580 4,735 5,272 2,186 4,165 Rank of number serveda 5 55 52 35 8 1 29 44 48 50 56 17 34 54 42 45 4 25 18 24 27 21 38 30 11 12 10 36 20 Amount per participant funded to serve ($) 1,506 1,311 1,735 1,078 1,341 1,260 1,392 1,117 1,246 1,335 1,430 1,440 1,542 2,791 1,349 1,543 1,352 1,078 1,342 1,324 1,435 1,221 1,428 1,348 1,381 1,431 1,451 1,516 1,325

State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Fed. States of Micronesia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri

Number of grantees 40 1 1 11 25 70 15 4 3 2 1 23 15 2 6 5 42 13 22 18 18 13 9 14 21 22 24 13 20

Funding amount ($) 11,593,319 209,814 260,181 2,665,556 7,012,886 19,593,593 4,023,624 1,077,487 797,628 834,181 228,825 6,010,042 3,893,873 530,371 1,801,843 1,412,240 11,258,085 3,691,635 5,844,776 4,826,739 4,810,337 4,793,414 2,755,715 4,074,800 6,324,232 6,775,751 7,651,720 3,313,014 5,517,273

Funding ranka 4 57 53 39 9 1 30 47 50 49 55 16 32 52 43 44 5 34 19 23 24 25 37 29 14 11 7 35 20

Participants served 8,091 161 325 2,641 5,664 16,438 3,146 1,034 651 622 160 4,530 2,769 224 1,415 1,023 8,637 3,653 4,480 3,771 3,439 4,148 1,962 3,126 4,935 4,924 5,388 2,572 4,450

Table continued on next page

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

27

Appendix B: State Tables on Funding and Select Participant Characteristics

Table B–1. Number of Student Support Services grantees, funding amount, funding rank, number of participants funded to serve, number served, rank of number served, and amount per participant, by state: 2003–04—Continued
Number of participants funded to serveb 3,078 2,875 600 715 3,594 2,715 10,995 5,882 1,645 160 4,522 4,063 2,805 175 4,575 6,709 600 4,225 1,510 2,835 13,110 1,926 1,474 3,800 4,145 1,836 5,161 960 195,288 Rank of number serveda 28 26 49 47 22 33 3 7 40 57 14 19 32 53 13 6 51 16 41 31 2 37 43 23 15 39 9 46 — Amount per participant funded to serve ($) 1,413 1,292 1,423 1,517 1,343 1,436 1,199 1,491 1,643 1,430 1,350 1,446 1,505 1,358 1,424 1,092 1,081 1,543 1,627 1,464 1,223 1,513 1,369 1,291 1,449 1,324 1,337 1,235 —

State Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Palau Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total

Number of grantees 15 13 3 4 17 14 46 34 9 1 21 20 16 1 25 22 2 25 9 16 59 10 7 18 20 9 23 4 936

Funding amount ($) 4,350,523 3,715,559 853,743 1,084,836 4,827,593 3,897,904 13,184,418 8,772,806 2,702,888 228,825 6,104,251 5,874,452 4,220,326 237,607 6,516,522 7,325,283 648,789 6,517,594 2,456,110 4,150,805 16,035,459 2,913,738 2,017,195 4,903,895 6,007,932 2,430,251 6,901,993 1,185,896 263,650,147

Funding ranka 26 33 48 46 22 31 3 6 38 55 15 18 27 54 13 8 51 12 40 28 2 36 42 21 17 41 10 45 —c

Participants served 3,421 3,454 624 715 4,027 2,853 11,783 6,748 1,697 91 4,638 4,453 2,999 242 4,764 7,124 571 4,580 1,576 3,090 14,012 2,256 1,277 3,916 4,590 1,947 5,602 968 208,397

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. a Rank is in descending order. b Participants funded to serve refers to the grantee’s planned level of service in terms of number of students, as agreed to by the Federal TRIO office before the beginning of the funding year. c A dash (—) indicates data not applicable.

28

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Appendix B: State Tables on Funding and Select Participant Characteristics

Table B–2. Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, based on race/ethnicity, gender, and eligibility status by state: 2003–04
Race/ethnicity Native American Hawaiian Indian or Black/ or other Alaska African- Hispanic Pacific native Asian American or Latino White Islander Percent 0.6 0.4 63.7 1.2 33.8 0.1 19.5 2.7 6.0 8.1 57.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 1.2 1.6 5.4 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.1 5.2 0.5 0.5 1.2 5.6 0.7 0.7 3.3 0.5 0.8 3.1 5.2 0.1 1.0 39.1 7.3 2.9 1.0 1.7 16.0 1.5 2.8 0.8 15.6 4.5 7.5 4.0 1.9 0.0 2.2 1.5 13.1 27.3 1.7 2.0 1.2 4.3 2.9 0.6 1.2 0.8 3.9 9.8 1.8 7.2 0.4 2.2 0.8 4.1 8.3 2.8 7.6 1.0 0.0 9.1 43.6 15.5 11.4 41.4 39.5 93.0 0.0 57.4 78.8 1.4 2.8 0.9 40.9 32.4 14.0 23.1 20.4 69.3 2.7 63.6 21.8 37.4 21.2 78.2 33.9 1.7 23.1 25.0 4.4 37.7 4.8 0.0 34.3 1.7 42.0 33.1 29.8 6.0 2.4 0.0 10.6 1.4 1.8 4.9 18.0 13.4 6.5 6.3 8.6 1.3 1.5 0.7 4.5 18.5 6.4 3.3 0.4 3.2 2.2 5.8 28.7 2.9 24.5 48.8 0.0 35.7 51.9 21.5 41.8 18.1 48.7 1.3 0.0 27.6 17.0 1.4 18.4 73.2 41.9 57.9 72.9 57.3 76.1 27.0 91.6 25.2 45.9 49.8 60.5 20.5 57.4 54.6 58.0 28.7 88.3 25.3 27.5 98.5 0.6 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.0 100.0 0.4 0.1 82.4 33.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 More than one race 0.3 6.7 0.0 1.3 0.6 2.3 3.7 1.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.0 11.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.1 2.1 0.6 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.7 1.2 2.2 0.3 1.8 1.0 1.3 3.2 0.6 2.4 1.8 Gender Eligibility status Lowincome/ All firstother generation groups 69.5 51.6 60.0 55.1 64.1 67.1 63.0 74.7 58.0 70.2 81.9 69.3 67.6 72.3 60.3 63.9 65.9 55.2 61.3 62.9 65.4 68.5 49.5 59.4 59.6 65.1 56.8 64.6 58.4 58.2 71.6 72.8 44.2 65.7 64.4 30.5 48.4 40.0 44.9 35.9 32.9 37.0 25.3 42.0 29.8 18.1 30.7 32.4 27.7 39.7 36.1 34.1 44.8 38.7 37.1 34.6 31.5 50.5 40.6 40.4 34.9 43.2 35.4 41.6 41.8 28.4 27.2 55.8 34.3 35.6

State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Fed. States of Micronesia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico

Male Female 27.8 29.2 48.0 32.1 27.1 31.9 34.8 34.3 24.6 29.0 55.0 26.1 29.4 28.4 29.1 36.9 25.5 36.6 32.6 37.4 27.2 27.5 34.2 31.6 36.8 31.2 37.3 34.0 31.4 37.5 32.2 31.1 30.4 32.2 34.9 72.2 70.8 52.0 67.9 72.9 68.1 65.2 65.7 75.4 71.0 45.0 73.9 70.6 71.6 70.9 63.1 74.5 63.4 67.4 62.6 72.8 72.5 65.8 68.4 63.2 68.8 62.7 66.0 68.6 62.5 67.8 68.9 69.6 67.8 65.1

Table continued on next page

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

29

Appendix B: State Tables on Funding and Select Participant Characteristics

Table B–2. Percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, based on race/ethnicity, gender, and eligibility status by state: 2003–04—Continued
Race/ethnicity Native American Hawaiian Indian or Black/ or other Alaska African- Hispanic Pacific native Asian American or Latino White Islander Percent 1.8 7.9 27.9 20.7 39.9 0.3 2.0 0.9 58.8 1.8 35.7 0.2 37.0 1.2 3.7 1.8 55.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 17.6 4.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.5 44.7 0.9 0.8 12.7 1.0 0.5 6.1 0.6 6.4 11.5 3.9 2.2 1.6 0.8 5.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.5 0.9 0.6 0.8 2.4 2.7 1.2 0.8 11.1 0.6 14.7 0.7 4.5 0.0 42.2 22.1 6.2 0.0 29.2 0.4 24.8 70.9 3.8 50.7 27.4 3.0 2.5 45.8 11.7 21.5 12.7 2.0 30.5 0.0 3.5 4.3 10.9 0.0 6.8 99.4 25.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 43.9 10.6 1.8 1.0 16.5 1.4 7.3 8.1 17.0 0.0 49.9 53.4 68.4 0.0 57.1 0.1 39.6 25.8 48.9 45.0 24.0 67.2 92.7 50.8 49.9 74.8 58.1 74.4 41.6 97.8 0.1 0.2 1.0 100.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 2.6 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.2 More than one race 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 2.2 1.7 4.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 4.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.9 3.4 1.0 0.5 3.2 1.4 Gender Eligibility status Lowincome/ All firstother generation groups 51.4 66.7 65.0 78.2 54.5 63.9 63.0 76.4 55.2 71.5 47.0 67.7 65.9 67.8 68.4 60.4 52.3 62.5 67.1 66.1 59.9 60.5 63.4 48.6 33.3 35.0 21.8 45.5 36.1 37.0 23.6 44.8 28.5 53.0 32.3 34.1 32.2 31.6 39.6 47.7 37.5 32.9 33.9 40.1 39.5 36.6

State New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Palau Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total

Male Female 37.4 25.9 38.3 29.7 32.9 32.3 31.0 50.8 37.1 32.1 29.6 23.1 34.8 29.3 30.1 38.5 41.8 28.1 30.5 36.9 40.0 31.2 32.0 62.6 74.1 61.7 70.3 67.1 67.7 69.0 49.2 62.9 67.9 70.4 76.9 65.2 70.7 69.9 61.5 58.2 71.9 69.5 63.1 60.0 68.8 68.0

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04.

30

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Appendix C

Supporting Tables for Figures
Table C–1. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degree-granting institutions, by type of institution: 2003–04
Grantees Number Percent 334 35.7 141 15.1 449 48.0 12 1.3 936 100.0 All degree-granting institutions Number Percent 634 15.0 1,896 44.8 1,086 25.6 620 14.6 4,236 100.0

Type of institution Public four-year institution Private four-year institution Public two-year institution Private two-year institution Total

SOURCE: Data from program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, and from the National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2004, Table 244—Degree-granting institutions, by control and type of institution: 1949–50 through 2003–04. This table can be found at: http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_244.asp. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table C–2. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services grantees and all degreegranting institutions, by minority-serving and nonminority-serving status: 2003–04
Grantees Number Percent 65 6.9 103 11.0 24 2.6 744 79.5 936 100.0 All degree-granting institutions Number Percent 104 2.5 242 5.7 35 0.8 3,855 91.0 4,236 100.0

Institutional status Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) Nonminority serving institutions Total

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04, and from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Digest of Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2004. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

31

Appendix C: Supporting Tables for Figures

Table C–3. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by participant status and type of institution: 2003–04
Type of institution Participant status Newa Continuingb Total Two-year institutions Number Percent 39,839 41.1 57,069 58.9 96,908 100.0 Four-year institutions Number Percent 41,918 37.6 69,556 62.4 111,474 100.0

SOURCE: Program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. Note: Number of participants is based on valid responses in the field of participant status only; number of participants may differ from other tables in this report due to invalid responses. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. a A new participant is an individual who participated in the SSS program for the first time in the reporting period. b A continuing participant is an individual who received services in both the current reporting period and in a previous reporting period.

Table C–4. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by eligibility status and type of institution: 2003–04
Type of institution Eligibility status Low-income and first-generation Low-income and disabled Low-income only First-generation only Disabled Total Two-year institutions Number Percent 61,271 64.8 6,354 6.7 5,711 6.0 16,087 17.0 5,199 5.5 94,622 100.0 Four-year institutions Number Percent 68,346 62.2 5,943 5.4 8,804 8.0 19,341 17.6 7,428 6.8 109,862 100.0

SOURCE: Program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. Note: Number of participants is based on valid responses in the field of eligibility status only; number of participants may differ from other tables in this report due to invalid responses. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

32

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Appendix C: Supporting Tables for Figures

Table C–5. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by current year enrollment status and type of institution: 2003–04
Type of institution Enrollment status Full-time Three-quarter time Half time Less than half time Varieda Unknown Total Two-year institutions Number Percent 50,847 52.7 7,150 7.4 7,746 8.0 4,724 4.9 23,932 24.8 2,119 2.2 96,518 100.0 Four-year institutions Number Percent 86,172 77.8 3,251 2.9 3,579 3.2 1,691 1.5 13,891 12.5 2,208 2.0 110,792 100.0

SOURCE: Program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. Note: Number of participants is based on valid responses in the field of enrollment status only; number of participants may differ from other tables in this report due to invalid responses. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
a Varied enrollment refers to instances in which the enrollment status of a student varies from one semester or quarter to another semester or quarter. For example, the enrollment status of a student who enrolls half-time in the fall semester and three-quarter time in the spring semester would be classified as varied enrollment.

Table C–6. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by race/ ethnicity and type of institution: 2003–04
Type of institution Race/ethnicity American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African-American Hispanic or Latino White Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander More than one race reporteda Total Two-year institutions Number Percent 4,364 4.5 2,862 3.0 27,719 28.8 13,662 14.2 44,701 46.5 1,661 1.7 1,219 1.3 96,188 100.0 Four-year institutions Number Percent 3,653 3.3 6,341 5.8 35,126 31.9 21,473 19.5 41,114 37.3 781 0.7 1,632 1.5 110,120 100.0

SOURCE: Program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. Note: Number of participants is based on valid responses in the field of race/ethnicity only; number of participants may differ from other tables in this report due to invalid responses. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. a More than one race reported is a check box in the race/ethnicity field of the annual performance report.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

33

Appendix C: Supporting Tables for Figures

Table C–7. Number and percentage distribution of Student Support Services participants, by gender and type of institution: 2003–04
Type of institution Gender Male Female Total Two-year institutions Number Percent 26,792 27.7 70,009 72.3 96,801 100.0 Four-year institutions Number Percent 39,800 35.7 71,552 64.3 111,352 100.0

SOURCE: Program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services annual performance reports, 2003–04. Note: Number of participants is based on valid responses in the field of gender only; number of participants may differ from other tables in this report due to invalid responses. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

34

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

Glossary

This glossary defines the terms used in the report. Some of them are specific to the TRIO program and do not necessarily apply to other U.S. Department of Education programs. Annual performance report (APR) is the program report submitted to TRIO by each grantee annually. The SSS APRs include information describing the participants, activities, and outcome measures for the funded programs. First-generation college student means a student from a family in which neither parent (whether natural or adoptive) received a baccalaureate degree or a student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one natural or adoptive parent and whose supporting parent did not receive a baccalaureate degree. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) are institutions of higher education that have a full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate enrollment that is at least 25 percent Hispanic and where not less than 50 percent of the institution’s Hispanic students are low-income individuals as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §1101a (see low-income individuals below). Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, as “any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.” Individual with disabilities means a student who has a diagnosed physical or mental impairment that substantially limits his or her ability to participate in the educational experiences and opportunities offered by the grantee institution. Low-income individual means a student whose family’s taxable income does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level in the calendar year preceding the year in which the individual initially received services. The poverty level amount is determined by using criteria established by the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) are postsecondary institutions that reported an enrollment of a single minority group, as the term “minority” is defined under §365(2) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1067k(2)), or a combination of those minority groups, that exceeded 50 percent of its total enrollment. For the purpose of this report, “minority” is defined as American Indian, Alaska Native, Black (not of Hispanic origin) and Hispanic. Pacific Islanders also are considered to be minorities for purposes

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

35

Glossary

of the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP). The list of minority institutions was complied based on the definition of “minority institution” found in §365(3) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1067k(3)), and on enrollment data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Participant status indicates involvement in the SSS program for each student in the reporting year. • A new participant is an individual who participated in the Student Support Services program for the first time in the current reporting period. • A continuing participant is an individual who participated in the Student Support Services program in both the current reporting period and in a previous reporting period. Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) are postsecondary institutions created to meet the higher education needs of American Indians, who often reside in geographically isolated rural areas with little access to postsecondary education. These tribally controlled postsecondary institutions are funded in part by the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-471).

36

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

References

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, A Profile of the Student Support Services Program: 1996–97, Washington, D.C., 2001. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, A Profile of the Student Support Services Program: 1997–98 and 1998–99, With Select Data From 1999–2000, Washington, D.C., 2004. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, A Profile of the Student Support Services Program: 1997–1999 Through 2001–02, With Select Data From 1999–2000, Washington, D.C., 2005.

An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002

37

Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. www.ed.gov